3 ms·
There are no equations and no citations to relevant formalisms so your guess is good as anyone's. The author had a spat with arXiv who, while not being a peer-
by thraway180306 8y ago
There are no equations and no citations to relevant formalisms so your guess is good as anyone's.
The author had a spat with arXiv who, while not being a peer-reviewed venue do their best to keep out the crackpottery, rejected some of the stuff coming from his vicinity. Gisin's complaint was loud, ended up published in Nature, and now it seems anything goes.
Then went a flood of similar gems. Such like over-the-top argument for physical time (deep problem formal in nontrivial ways), because thinking requires time thus obviously https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01497 https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01497 (doubtful any creative time went into that). I think figure 5 therein anwsers your question best as the author can.
- jessriedel 8y ago> https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01497 https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01497 Note that this is in the "history and philosophy of physics" section of the arXiv, so it's not flooding the arXiv in general. I've heard a small handful of practical physicists complain that Ginsin is getting too much status by posting on the arXiv, but I haven't heard any philosophers of science complain that his papers are particularly bad, much less that they are so obviously worthless that they are a net negative due to taking up space on the daily list of what's new in that section.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- edna314 8y agoLooking at figure 2 in the paper you were mentioning helped me a lot in understanding his thought process.